ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2008
Performance characteristics of a new rapid immunochromatographic test for the detection of antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) types 1 and 2.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contribution of the classical polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis of a HIV-1 infected patient in Benin: a case report.AIDS research and therapy · 2021Article
- A rapid ultrasound particle agglutination method for HIV antibody detection: Comparison with conventional rapid HIV tests.Journal of virological methods · 2017Article
- Field Evaluation of Four Rapid Tests for Diagnosis of HIV Infection in Panama.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
- Hepatitis B, HIV, and Syphilis Seroprevalence in Pregnant Women and Blood Donors in Cameroon.Infectious diseases in obstetrics and gynecology · 2016Article
- Article
- Rapid HIV testing program implementation: lessons from the emergency department.International journal of emergency medicine · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnostic kits for the detection of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibodies have reached an unprecedented number. But choice of an ideal, cost-effective, and rapid test for HIV infection is of immense value for use in developing countries like India, where resources are limited. In this study we have evaluated the performance characteristics of the rapid immunochromatographic HIV test kit First Response HIV 1-2.O. First, the laboratory archived 450 characterized plasma/serum specimens, which were tested on First Response HIV 1-2.O. Second, a total of 134 consecutive voluntary counseling and testing (VCT) specimens were also tested and positive specimens were further confirmed with HIV TRI-DOT. All these VCT specimens were cross-checked with HIV double-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Murex and Vironostika), and the results were matched. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and efficiency of First Response HIV 1-2.O with the 450 characterized specimens was 100% for HIV-1 with reference assay. The results in the VCT algorithm were correlating with double-ELISA. In the HIV-2 analysis, five HIV-2-positive specimens in First Response HIV 1-2.O were found to be HIV-2-indeterminate on Western blot. HIV TRI-DOT was unable to pick up two HIV-2 Western blot-positive specimens. First Response HIV 1-2.O has several advantages: low-cost (U.S. $0.70); only 10 microL of specimen; involves only two steps; room temperature storage; ability to differentiate HIV-1 and 2; and use of whole blood specimen. Hence this test kit could be suitable for initial screening in the HIV testing algorithm in resource-limited settings. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 22:178-185, 2008. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.